Some veterinarians, pressured by the need to meet overheads and their substantial salary (which of course they deserve), either willingly or because they feel they have to, do the kind of selling in their clinics that is pretty much an exact replica of the person serving you at Macdonald’s when you order a burger.
You go to McDonald’s and order a burger. The sales assistant behind the counter is trained to up-sell to encourage you to buy something with your burger.
You go to your veterinary clinic and you ask for a checkup for your cat or dog. All you want is a checkup. Some veterinarians, pressured by the owner of the clinic, will sell you dental treatment for your dog or cash. In respect of cats and dogs and veterinary clinics, dental treatment for gum disease, is the equivalent of french fries in a McDonald’s. Periodontal disease (gum disease) is perhaps the most common health problem amongst dogs and is certainly very highly ranked amongst cats.
In a veterinary clinic the equivalent of coleslaw in a McDonald’s restaurant is unnecessary vaccinations. When the recommendation is for three-yearly vaccinations the up-selling veterinary surgeon will sell you annual vaccinations. Not only does this make bread and butter income for the veterinary surgeon it may well harm your cat or dog.
Vaccinations and dental treatments are the bread-and-butter income of the veterinary practice and you cannot exclude from that list, declawing. The beauty of dental treatment for a dog or cat is that it requires a full anaesthetic, which pushes up the cost to a substantial level.
Once again, the customer is, of course, able to say, “No, I don’t want what you suggest for my cat”. But the veterinary surgeon relies upon his trusted standing in the community to almost guarantee that the customer will agree with him.
When you visit veterinary surgeons’ clinics you should remember that you are walking into a business environment. There are two criteria upon which a veterinarian will make a decision in respect of treatment: financial profit and the animal’s welfare. There is a fine balance between these two often competing and conflicting objectives for a veterinarian.
http://youtu.be/Nx5qLQYq0o8
Please note: this video may well be removed on YouTube because I’m not sure that it should be on YouTube. If it is removed there will be a black screen and I apologise if that is the case.
The AVMA states, in defence of their veterinarians, that the client always has a choice to accept the veterinarian’s recommendations or not. With respect, that is a hopelessly inadequate response because they know very well that nearly every customer will not wish to go against their veterinarian’s recommendations particularly because they are emotionally concerned and attached to the companion animal and in an environment which puts them on the defensive and where they are almost certain to go along with what is suggested.
Recommendations my eye!!! More like propaganda!!! Its all about making an informed decision and how can you do that if you aren’t in possession of the facts?? Vets will never give the facts therefore clients will be making a terrible costly mistake; costly for their cats 🙁
I still think that vets should be sued by their clients for malpractice for NOT giving them the facts!!
This video was part of an article that went totally viral- The article basically accused vets here in the USA at least- that practitioners “add” unneccesary services to bring in the bucks.
What I find irresponsible about this video, and the article in which is that they can easily give pet guardians the idea that what their vets are recommending are unneccesary treatments and procedures, when in fact they may be totally appropriate.
I am sure there are unscrupulous practices as there are in human medicine- that are “in it for the money” and recommend services that are truly not needed- but in fairness to the ethical vets, like Marty Becker, they treat their patients based on what is needed.
It is up to guardians, in my humble opinion, is when presented with costly procedures, getting a second opinion (not from a practitioner who is recommended by the vet in question) to ascertain if the work is truly needed.
I have been blessed by only ethical vets throughout my lifetime with cats. I have consulted with so- called experts who highly recommended procedures for which I knew there were much less expensive and risky alternatives. In fact I will be writing about a recent experience that left me wanting to scream my head off in protest. After saying “no” repeatedly, they finally stopped bothering me.
Just know that just because a vet is “certified” in their field, it doesn’t mean they are not money-hungry.
Great article, Michael- very thought provoking.
It’s almost a conflict of interest.
For as long as animals are sick, vets make money. It’s designed to fail right from the start in the context of modern capitalism.
This is true Michael, when living beings are involved making money should never come first.